RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02437
            INDEX CODE:  111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 Feb 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

   1) Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a close-out (c/o)  date  of  13
      Feb 05 be removed and replaced  with  the  corrected  OPR  signed  by
      reviewer on 6 Jan 06.


   2) He be considered for  promotion  to  Lieutenant  Colonel  by  special
      selection board  (SSB)  for  the  CY06A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
      Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Original OPR had Intermediate Developmental Education  (IDE)  push  in  last
line of Sections VI & VII.  Corrected OPR has “command” as the push.

In support of his request, applicant provided an AF IMT 948,
DD Form 149, original and corrected copy of 13 Feb 05  OPR,  and  rater  and
additional rater memorandums.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  personnel  data  system  reveals  that  the
applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  24
May 92 and was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on  that  same
date.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on  9  Oct  01  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 02.  As of the  applicant’s  BCMR
submission, he was due to meet the upcoming P0506A Lt Col  selection  board.
Subsequently, AFBCMR verified the applicant was not selected  for  promotion
to the grade of Lt Col.

In regards to the applicant’s OPR (c/o date 13 Feb 05), the  rater  provided
a memorandum, stating due to an oversight, the applicant was  given  an  IDE
push.  The rater was given the impression that  even  though  the  applicant
had recently completed IDE,  he  should  still  use  that  school  push.   A
command push is a better vector.  The additional rater stated  that  due  to
an oversight, the applicant was given an IDE push.   He  has  completed  IDE
and a command push would better reflect the proper vector.

The applicant completed non-resident IDE in Jan 05.  As of the
13 Feb 05 OPR close-out date,  the  applicant  had  not  completed  IDE  in-
residence and his eligibility window ended
30 Apr 05.

Per  AFI  36-2406,  paragraph  3.7.37.22.,  “In   addition   to   assignment
recommendations, evaluators may also make  recommendations  for  appropriate
level  in-residence  Professional  Military   Education   (PME)   in   OPRs.
Evaluators determine the appropriate  level  recommendation  by  considering
the highest level in-residence PME the officer has already  completed  along
with eligibility criteria for each  level  of  in-residence  PME.   Example:
For a major, if, as of the close-out date of the OPR,  he  or  she  has  not
completed IDE in-residence and is still eligible for consideration, the  IDE
recommendation is appropriate.”

The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

            11 Jan 06        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
            13 Feb 05        MS
            13 Feb 04        *MS
            13 Feb 03             MS
            13 Feb 02             MS
            13 Feb 01             MS
            13 Feb 00             MS
            16 May 99             MS
            16 May 98             MS
             5 Jan 98             MS
             5 Jan 97             MS
             5 Jan 96             MS
            19 Mar 95             MS
             1 Apr 94             MS

* - Contested Report

___________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommendation is denial.  The applicant provided a  memo
from the rater,  stating  he  was  advised  that  although  the  member  had
completed IDE,  he  should  still  put  a  school  push  on  the  OPR.   The
additional rater provided a memo stating the member  has  already  completed
IDE and a command push is more appropriate for the  member.   The  applicant
completed
non-resident IDE in  Jan  05.   AFI  36-2406,  paragraph  3.7.22.2.  states,
“Evaluators may also make recommendations  for  the  appropriate  level  in-
residence  PME  in  OPRs.   Evaluators  determine  the   appropriate   level
recommendation  by  considering  the  highest  level  in-residence  PME  the
officer has already completed along with the eligibility criteria  for  each
level of in-residence PME.”  The applicant did not complete in-resident  IDE
as of the close out date of the  report  and  was  still  eligible  for  in-
resident IDE until 30 Apr 05.  Therefore,  the  IDE  recommendation  on  the
report is accurate as written.

Both PME and assignment recommendations are authorized  but  not  mandatory.
Simply changing the applicant’s OPR to read a command push  for  convenience
is  prohibited.   While  it  may  be  argued  that   the   omission   of   a
recommendation for an assignment was inadvertent  rather  than  intentional,
the purpose of the appeal process is to correct errors or injustices.

The HQ AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28  Sep
06 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
02437 in Executive Session on 14 Nov 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit  C.   Memorandum,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP,  dated  11  Sep  06
w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Sep 06.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair

                       AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                             OF MILITARY RECORDS

                   CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NO:

XXXXXXX     BC-2006-02437


ROUTE IN TURN    INITIALS  DATE


1.  CHIEF EXAMINER     ________  ________
    (Coord/Signature)

2.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ________  ________
    (Coordination)

3.  EXAMINER (FOR DISPATCH)  ________  ________

4.  Mr. Laurence M. Groner
    PANEL CHAIR
    (Signature on Proceedings)    ________  ________

5.  AFBCMR (Processing)





                                 LATRESE M. TAYLOR
                                 Examiner
                                 Air Force Board for Correction
                                 of Military Records
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


                                  DATE:  16 Nov 06

MEMBERS PRESENT:



Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair



Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member


Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member


TYPE OF MEETING: FORMAL  _____    EXECUTIVE SESSION X

EXAMINER:  LaTrese M. Taylor

APPLICANT:  XXXXXXX

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02437     CASE NO:01


                                                  CODE:  _____


DECISION OF THE BOARD:_____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

RATIONALE:_________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________




                       ___________________________________
                       EXAMINER



AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002


XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX, XXXXX

Dear XXXXXX

      Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR BC-2006-02437.


      After careful consideration of your application and military records,
the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Accordingly, the Board denied your
application.


      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for
consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a
further review of your application is not possible.


      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                       ALGIE WALKER, JR.
                                       Chief Examiner
                                       Air Force Board for
                                       Correction
                                       of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings